Case 3306965/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Benedetti-Smith v Quality Villas Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3306965/2023
- Decision date
- 15 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Benedetti-Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy Rule 21 judgment, the tribunal found that Quality Villas Limited had made unauthorised deductions from Mrs C Benedetti-Smith's wages and ordered payment of £2,666.67 gross. It also found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,834.80.
The tribunal further found that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,680.50, noting the figure was capped at £643 and based on 9 years' service. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,400.00. The judgment stated that it did not deal with pension issues and that the claimant remained free to pursue those matters by an alternative route if she wished. The total of the awards set out in the judgment is £18,581.97.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £2,667 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £4,835 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal recorded entitlement to a redundancy payment, noting it was capped at £643 and 9 years' service. | Upheld | — | £8,681 |
| Holiday pay | Award for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,582
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.